Assessing the Effect of Training on the Cognition and Brain of Older Adults: Protocol for a Three-Arm Randomized Double-Blind Controlled Trial (ACTOP) (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND To prevent age-related cognitive impairment, many intervention programs offer exercises targeting different central cognitive processes. However, the effects of different process-based training programs are rarely compared within equivalent experimental designs. OBJECTIVE Using a randomized double-blind controlled trial, this project aims to examine and compare the impact of 2 process-based interventions, inhibition and updating, on the cognition and brain of older adults. METHODS A total of 90 healthy older adults were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 training conditions: (1) inhibition (Stroop-like exercises), (2) updating (N-back-type exercises), and (3) control active (quiz game exercise). Training was provided in 12 half-hour sessions over 4 weeks. First, the performance gain observed will be measured on the trained tasks. We will then determine the extent of transfer of gain on (1) untrained tasks that rely on the same cognitive process, (2) complex working memory (WM) measurements hypothesized to involve 1 of the 2 trained processes, and (3) virtual reality tasks that were designed to mimic real-life situations that require WM. We will assess whether training increases cortical volume given that the volume of the cortex is determined by cortical area and thickness in regions known to be involved in WM or changes task-related brain activation patterns measured with functional magnetic resonance imaging. Dose effects will be examined by measuring outcomes at different time points during training. We will also determine whether individual characteristics moderate the effect of training on cognitive and cerebral outcomes. Finally, we will evaluate whether training reduces the age-related deficit on transfer and brain outcomes, by comparing study participants to a group of 30 younger adults. RESULTS The project was funded in January 2017; enrollment began in October 2017 and data collection was completed in April 2019. Data analysis has begun in June 2020 and the first results should be published by the end of 2020 or early 2021. CONCLUSIONS The results of this study will help understand the relative efficacy of 2 attentional control interventions on the cognition and the brain of older adults, as well as the moderating role of individual characteristics on training efficiency and transfer. CLINICALTRIAL ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03532113; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03532113 INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT DERR1-10.2196/20430
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.047 | 0.010 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".